453 WHEN LESS ISN’T MORE: ILLUSTRATING THE APPEAL OF A MORAL RIGHTS MODEL OF COPYRIGHT THROUGH A STUDY OF MINIMALIST ART RIKKI SAPOLICH* I. INTRODUCTION What do the Apple iPod, Ikea, nouvelle cuisine, and Seinfield have in common? All four are popular examples of the minimalist movement’s im- mense influence on modern culture. Due to its sleek stylization, it is easy to see that minimalism is a guiding principle in the design of Apple products. Con- sider as an example the iPod Shuffle, the most minimalist of MP3 players. Its interface contains only the items absolutely necessary to play music: a play/pause button, a rocker-ring for moving through songs, a power switch, and a battery check.1 Even the USB plug is cleverly hidden.2 In stark contrast to other MP3 players, there is no display and, there are no playlists or adjustable settings.3 The influence of minimalism is clear. The popular furniture store Ikea has built an empire selling inexpensive copies of Moderne designer furniture conveniently packaged to easily fit in a station wagon. In design and architecture, Modernism, with its commitment to integrity of materials and “utter simplicity” of design, embraced the mantra “less is more.”4 Modernist design elements grew out of the minimalist design * J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center, (Expected 2007); B.S. in Science, The Pennsylvania State University, Schreyer Honors College, 2006. Warmest thanks to my parents, Richard and Denise Sapolich, for their unconditional encouragement and support. 1 Bill Machrone, iPod Shuffle, PC MAGAZINE, May 2005, http://www.findarticles.com/p/arti- cles/mi_zdpcm/is_200505/ai_n13638254#continue. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 Furniture.com, The Many Paths to Modern Design para. 8, http://www.furniture.com/Com- mon/magazine/style/ModernDesign.asp?xs=312834E81A-C529-4D2B-B24569F52F9EB45 &se=632757150484218750&CookieFlag=disabled (last visited Nov. 22, 2006) (quoting the famous words of designer and architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe that “less is more”). Volume 47 — Number 4 454 IDEA—The Intellectual Property Law Review aesthetics of International Style that developed in Europe, particularly at the Bauhaus School of Art and Design.5 Modernism became popular in the United States following the development of the minimalist movement in the 1950s and 1960s, as the aesthetics encouraged by minimalism took hold in popular cul- ture.6 This influence continues today, as evident in the mass appeal of Ikea’s furniture, which showcases raw materials such as metal and wood, that is stripped of unnecessary adornments. Nouvelle cuisine is another of the many areas where minimalism’s in- fluence is evident. In the 1970s, nouvelle cuisine developed as a rejection of the overly-complex and overly-sauced classic French cuisine that had been popular until that time.7 Like the minimalist movement before it, nouvelle cuisine re- jected the time consuming and complicated food preparation methods used in classic French cooking in favor of simple preparations as chefs sought to main- tain the integrity of the ingredients.8 Nouvelle cuisine embraced “the ‘aesthetics of simplicity’” which developed into austere minimalism, with chefs presenting large, nearly bare plates showcasing a few morsels of select ingredients.9 Finally, even the television show Seinfield can trace its roots to the minimalist movement. Although Seinfield does not visually appear to be rooted in minimalist aesthetics, in a broader sense it follows the minimal forms that have invaded popular culture by exemplifying the mantra “less is more.”10 Minimalists embrace the concept that “‘what you see is what you see;’” there is no hidden meaning or overarching agenda to a work of art.11 Likewise, in the minimalist tradition, Seinfield fashioned itself as “‘a show about nothing,’” fo- cusing on the minutiae of daily life without any grander plot or theme.12 Even these limited examples indicate the important and far-reaching in- fluence that the minimalist movement has had on modern culture. Despite its importance, American copyright law is at odds with many of the aspects that make minimalist art what it is. In this sense, minimalist art is no different than 5 Id. 6 KENNETH BAKER, MINIMALISM:ART OF CIRCUMSTANCE 10, 13, 29 (Alan Axelrod ed., Abbe- ville Press 1988). 7 Very Tall Orders, THE INDEPENDENT ON SUNDAY,FOOD &DRINK (U.K.), (Sept. 21, 2003), at para. 8, available at 2003 WLNR 10552364. 8 Id. at para. 8, 10. 9 Id. at para. 8. 10 Craig Bunch, Minimalism, in 3 ST.JAMES ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POPULAR CULTURE 369 (Tom Pendergast & Sara Pendergast eds., St. James Press 2000). 11 Johnathan Freeland, Is Less More?, THE GUARDIAN, para. 8 (Dec. 1, 2001), http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,609721,00.html. 12 Bunch, supra note 10, at 369. 47 IDEA 453 (2007) Illustrating the Appeal of a Moral Rights Model of Copyright 455 most works of fine art. However, due to its unique nature, the inadequacies of the current Copyright Act, when applied to works of fine art, are especially pro- nounced when considered in relation to minimalist art. American copyright law developed to meet the constitutional mandate “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by providing an eco- nomic incentive for artistic creation.13 Under the assumption that a major influ- ence on the creation of art is the incentive of anticipated market demand, American copyright law grants artists the exclusive right to copy their work as an incentive for the artist to create, in turn benefiting society through increased availability of works of art.14 This assumption fails, however, when applied to fine artists, who are generally outwardly influenced by culture and internally influenced by the desire to create, because the economic incentives available under American copyright law are immaterial.15 Moral rights, as provided under European copyright law, are better adapted to address the interests of fine artists because they protect not only the finished work, but also the artist’s control over the creative process and ultimately her persona and reputation.16 Protecting the artist’s persona and reputation serves as an incentive to create. The artist will be more willing to expose her inner self, as expressed through her art, if she is as- sured that the public will treat her art with respect.17 Despite American copyright law’s lack of incentives geared toward fine artists, minimalist art has continued to flourish in American culture, as evi- denced by the four examples above. If minimalist art, and fine art in general, is created regardless of the availability of moral rights, what need is there for pro- tection of moral rights? Fully developed systems of moral rights protection exists in many European legal systems; France is generally considered the leader in protection of moral rights, with Germany and Italy close behind.18 This protection reflects the high value these countries and their cultures place on art, both currently and 13 U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 8; Daniel J. Gifford, Innovation and Creativity in the Fine Arts: The Relevance and Irrelevance of Copyright, 18 CARDOZO ARTS &ENT. L.J. 569, 572 (2000). 14 Gifford, supra note 13, at 569, 572. 15 See id. at 569. 16 Susan P. Liemer, Understanding Artists’ Moral Rights: A Primer, 7 B.U. PUB.INT. L.J. 41, 41–42, 44 (1998). 17 Id. at 43–44. 18 Roberta Rosenthal Kwall, Copyright and the Moral Right: Is an American Marriage Possi- ble?, 38 VAND.L.REV. 1, 11–12 (1985); Liemer, supra note 16, at 42. Volume 47 — Number 4 456 IDEA—The Intellectual Property Law Review at the time moral rights developed.19 When copyright developed in the United States, cultural identity was still in development; leaders sought to build a unique American culture focused on industry. As a result, intellectual property rights supporting industry and commercialism developed.20 As American culture has matured, moral rights have also begun to emerge, for example through enactment of the Visual Artists Rights Act, al- though they are in a much earlier state of development than in most European countries.21 Until recently, American art has failed to achieve international rec- ognition; however, the United States is “currently undergoing an important tran- sition” due to changing cultural values, including recognition and appreciation of art’s non-economic aspects in response to increased international recognition of American art.22 As this recognition and appreciation approaches the level shown to artists in countries such as France, Germany, and Italy, American pro- tection of moral rights should develop in a manner that model the protections provided in those countries. Alternate arguments for increased protection of moral rights have also been advanced. For example, providing an artist with moral rights would ensure that blind reliance on consumer demand will not hinder artistic diversity by pro- viding an artist with bargaining power to prevent publishers, producers, and large corporate entities that often own copyrights from censoring an artist’s work to comply with the public’s taste.23 Additionally, some have observed the American copyright law’s limited protection of moral rights should be redes- igned to become more closely aligned with the requirements of the Berne Con- vention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, so as not to hinder the United States’ ability to trade with countries offering stricter protection of moral 19 Kwall, supra note 18, at 11; Ilhyung Lee, Toward an American Moral Rights in Copyright, 58 WASH.&LEE L. REV. 795, 803–04 (2001) (noting that “[a]rt is ‘one of the glories of France’”); Liemer, supra note 16, at 42. 20 Susan P. Liemer, How We Lost Our Moral Rights and the Door Closed on Non-Economic Values in Copyright, 5 J.